John Kerry spelled out his Iraq policy today on NPR Morning Edition.
Asked to explain why he actually advocated increasing the number of troops in Iraq before he advocated decreasing the number of troops in Iraq:
What I've said is if the commanders ask for it then you'd have to respond with what the commanders ask for. But my goal is to get our troops reduced in number. And I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of, uh, alliance building that is available to us that it is appropriate to have the goal of reducing our troops at that period of time. Obviously we have to see how events unfold.Just in case that wasn't enough nuance, an aide later "clarified" these remarks to mean that these are "goals" that Kerry has, not a "plan".
NPR's Andrea Seabrook:
Knowing all he knows now, would he have voted to authorize the Iraq war?Kerry:
I'm ready to any challenge and I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a President to have. But I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.Kerry did not say exactly how he would have executed the Iraq war differently.
There is no there there.
The interview was appropriately held at the Grand Canyon, which is a nice metaphor for the Canyons of His Mind.
But he still has time to change his mind before the election, in case the polls indicate that he should have opposed the war.
Posted by: Tim Ford on August 11, 2004 01:36 PMKerry's comments are perfectly reasonable. He will give commanders what they need, but getting a bit of buy-in from some allies would decrease the need for U.S. troops. Commenting that unforeseen events would impact his plan is also reasonable.
If he laid out an inflexible schedule of withdrawl, I'd be concerned.
Has Bush laid out a firm plan for troop levels in Iraq?
Posted by: Rabii LNMB on August 19, 2004 07:15 AM